well for some reason the permalink isn't working so here's what i said:

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

well for some reason the permalink isn't working so here's what i said:

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I read one of the early drafts of his notion. He's changed it significantly, but refuses to own up to previous thoughts that have changed.

He's basically using science, but with "intelligent" liberally thrown in. Darn shame he doesn't understand what he's writing about though.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

well for some reason the permalink isn't working so here's what i said:

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you. If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well. That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you. If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well. That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.

Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.

Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you. If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well. That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.

Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.

Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!

NO NO NO NO

The only science stopper here is you. Why? Because you are not using science to support your work.

I know you don't get this, but you have to have those references, all of them, in your work to show that you have support for everything you say and that you have considered alternate hypotheses and why those don't work.

And that's the biggest flaw in your work. There is nothing in the work you've presented or the statements you've made here that indicate you have any understanding of what is really going on in the world of science. Further, you seem to have no concept of the scientific method, how to gather evidence, how to design a good experiment, and how to display and communicate the data developed in those experiments.

You make dozens of claims, none of which have any evidential support at all. You are assuming the thing you're supposed to be providing evidence for. And you are misusing scientific terminology.

You are not accepting this criticism in any constructive way. You are defending the things you've said, but you are doing so without providing any evidence that they are true statements. And again, you are saying things that are known to be wrong.

That's why I asked you those three questions about Lenski's experiments. You assumed that Lenski was trying to develop a citrate consuming E. coli. He wasn't, he never was, and that was never the point of the experiment he was doing. It happened and it resulted in some of the greatest work on evolution in the modern age.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you. If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well. That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.

Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.

Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!

NO NO NO NO

The only science stopper here is you. Why? Because you are not using science to support your work.

I know you don't get this, but you have to have those references, all of them, in your work to show that you have support for everything you say and that you have considered alternate hypotheses and why those don't work.

And that's the biggest flaw in your work. There is nothing in the work you've presented or the statements you've made here that indicate you have any understanding of what is really going on in the world of science. Further, you seem to have no concept of the scientific method, how to gather evidence, how to design a good experiment, and how to display and communicate the data developed in those experiments.

You make dozens of claims, none of which have any evidential support at all. You are assuming the thing you're supposed to be providing evidence for. And you are misusing scientific terminology.

You are not accepting this criticism in any constructive way. You are defending the things you've said, but you are doing so without providing any evidence that they are true statements. And again, you are saying things that are known to be wrong.

That's why I asked you those three questions about Lenski's experiments. You assumed that Lenski was trying to develop a citrate consuming E. coli. He wasn't, he never was, and that was never the point of the experiment he was doing. It happened and it resulted in some of the greatest work on evolution in the modern age.

Or in other words: You would rather philosophize, act sincere while being condescending, put words in my mouth, continually change the subject, while making it seem like it’s my fault you cannot understand the theory (if you even studied it at all).

Thankfully, I only needed to show how scientifically useless this forum is. I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

This would be where?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

This would be where?

Let's just say it's "None of your damn business."

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell. Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Thankfully, I only needed to show how scientifically useless this forum is. I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

Gary, you might want to look over the FTK thread for some tips on flounce-out etiquette. Don't forget to call us big meanies on the way out the door.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

You may have seen these previously, but if you haven't they are hilarious. These are the comments left by people at Planet Source Code after Gary posted the latest iteration of his Intelligent Design Lab.

Beaming with pride, Gary thanks his new pals and hints at more to come....

Quote

12/5/2011 6:28:08 PM: Gary Gaulin

Thanks for great compliments!

Next is a subsystem for touch/taste to feel around with the mouth. Far goal of producing intelligent causation event requires virtual stem cells and such. In case there are volunteers!

Multiple entities at a time added with array element on variables needed to represent each, although a modern PC cannot run large numbers really needed for emergence experiments. Does not require great biological detail just behavior to self-organize a functional system that begins to cycle plus store memories and all that indicates it’s intelligent, it’s alive! :D

Hopefully it remains useful and challenging with those able to make good use of it. So with thanks for awesomely letting me know it’s where the right-stuff are, my best to you for your future experiments.

But wait a cotton-pickin' moment....who's this....?

Quote

1/8/2012 5:43:00 AM: bobghengiskhan

I know I am new to this site but really, I don't get it. Whilst I have no major issues with the code itself, the 30 page "documentation" (besides for some reason being supplied twice) seems to contain pages and pages of material that bear no obvious relationship to the program itself. And worse, makes it appear as if the publication of the code itself has more to do with some kind of pro Intelligent Design agenda (though not in any form that the Discovery Institute or its advocates would recognise, I am sure) than anything else.

For this reason, I feel that I must downgrade something that otherwise might be at least average.

You won't be surprised to discover that Gary doesn't take this criticism too well.....

Quote

1/11/2012 8:16:13 AM: Gary Gaulin

BobGhengisKhan you’re only here to bully a biology based computer model because of its included biology based theory, that’s only useless to someone with no interest in coding these biological models. Serious code must account for chromosome speciation (as in humans) and all else mentioned.

As far as science is concerned it’s historic to prove that a once believed impossible theory is scientifically possible. Better that than get stuck behind a science-stopper, thinking small instead of big, while those not interested in this talk about a long ago conquered Discovery Institute and half a globe you chopped off the Intelligence Design Lab.

Your damage to the once 5 globe rating is obscured by a gold emblem from being honored by real peers with the Planet Source Code "Superior Coding Contest Winner" Award for Visual Basic. I’m proud and thankful to this way be judged in a community, I did write all this for, where what matters is usefulness to others, not your politics…

Ahahahahaha!!! You took my Globe but you can't take away my Emblem!!!!

Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell. Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

So, Giggles...

You're lumping together all the known mechanisms of genomic variation, (other perhaps than single-base mutations caused by stray radiation) and calling them "guesses"

But we have perfectly good and descriptive words already for those mechanisms.

And you're still INTIMATING, but not supporting with evidence, that such mechanisms are in some way directed.

Not moved forward at all, have you? You're simply implying volition by using the word "guess"

I honestly don't think you'll ever find a forum where you'l get the recognition you crave.

Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell. Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

Since it may be to dificult to increase exposure to cosmic rays considerably I suggest that from now on you sleep under an UV tanning booth and find a job deep inside an atomic plant. If you don't already do you should definitively start smoking. Due to all the intelligence induced by these agents you may write something coherent one day.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."